Abstract

This study sets out to explore human resource management (HRM) practices in multinational corporation (MNC) subsidiaries within an institutional theory framework. Based on a sample of 158 subsidiaries of MNCs operating in the United States, Russia and Finland, the paper examines factors hypothesised to influence the HRM practices adapted in US, Japanese and European MNC subsidiaries located in Russia, Finland and the US. The results indicate significant differences in HRM practices used across host countries. Both the status of the subsidiary human resource department and the degree to which the subsidiary was involved in knowledge transfer with other parts of the MNC had a significant impact on the selection of HRM practices.

Becker, B. and Huselid, M. (1998) ‘High performance work systems and firm performance: a synthesis of research and managerial implications’, Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management 16: 53–101.Google Scholar

Ferner, A., Almond, P. and Colling, T. (2005) ‘Institutional theory and the cross-national transfer of employment policy: the case of “workforce diversity” in US multinationals’, Journal of International Business Studies 36 (3): 304–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferner, A. and Quantanilla, J. (1998) ‘Multinationals, national business systems and HRM: the enduring influence of national identity or a process of ‘Anglo-Saxonization’, International Journal of Human Resource Management 9 (4): 710–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Puffer, S.M. and McCarthy, D.J. (1995) ‘Finding the common ground in Russian and American business ethics’, California Management Review 37 (2): 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Puffer, S.M. and Shekshnia, S.V. (1994) ‘Compensating local employees in post-communist Russia: in search of talent or just looking for a bargain?’ Compensation and Benefits Review 26 (5): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scullion, H. and Starkey, K. (2000) ‘In search of the changing role of the corporate human resource function in the international firm’, International Journal of Human Resource Management 11 (6): 1061–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar